Christian Gabroy (#8805) Kaine Messer (#14240) The District at Green Valley Ranch 170 South Green Valley Parkway, Suite 280 Henderson, NV 89012 Tel: (702) 259-7777 Fax: (702) 259-7704 christian@gabroy.com kmesser@gabroy.com Jon R. Mower, Esq. Admitted Pro Hac Vice THEODORA ORINGHER PC 535 Anton Boulevard, Ninth Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7109 Tel: (714) 549-6200 Fax: (714) 549-6201 jmower@tocounsel.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Shawn Jaffee and Derek Kritz
SHAWN JAFFEE and DEREK KRITZ, Case No: 2:19-cv-00644-APG-NJK individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES Plaintiffs, (First Request) vs.
WYNN LAS VEGAS, LLC, a Nevada domestic limited-liability company, EMPLOYEE(S)/AGENT(S) DOES 1-10; and ROE CORPORATIONS 11-20, inclusive; Defendant. STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES The parties, by and through their respective counsel of record and in compliance with FRCP 16 and LR 26-3, hereby stipulate and request that the deadline to complete discovery, and all corresponding deadlines in the Court’s Scheduling Order (ECF No. 49), be extended by ninety (90) days. A. DISCOVERY COMPLETED: Both parties have exchanged their initial disclosures required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A).
B. STATEMENT SPECIFYING THE DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE COMPLETED Should the parties not achieve resolution as more fully explained below, Plaintiff anticipates taking the deposition of Defendant Wynn Las Vegas, LLC (“Defendant”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). Plaintiff also anticipates taking the depositions of individuals with knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding the allegations in the Complaint. Defendant anticipates taking the deposition of Plaintiffs and other collective members. Further, both parties anticipate serving written discovery. C. THE REASONS WHY DISCOVERY WAS NOT COMPLETED WITHIN Per FRCP 16(B)(4), a discovery scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” Good cause exists “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.1992). As this very Court has correctly noted in this matter, “[c]ounsel should strive to be cooperative, practical and sensible.” ECF No. 50, p. 1. To that end, the parties have had extensive discussions concerning potential early resolution given the limited damages period in this matter. Indeed, the Court’s February 11, 2020 Order granted in part Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 37), resulting in a damages period commencing on March 23, 2018 as recognized by this Court. See ECF No. 49, p. 4, lines 16-23. Defendant later filed its Answer (ECF No. 45) on April 24, 2020, and this Court approved the proposed scheduling order on May 13, 2020 (ECF No. 49). Specifically, in the spirit of cooperation, practicality, and sensibility, the parties agreed that rather than engaging in potentially unnecessary and costly motion and trial practice, instead Defendant will produce putative related data (the “Data”) so that Plaintiffs may independently analyze such Data to compile an appropriate damages analysis. Once such analysis has been done, the parties have agreed to engage in good faith settlement efforts. Of course, the ongoing pandemic has drastically slowed this process. Specifically, Defendant’s business (along with other hotels and casinos) was shut down per order of the Governor for a majority of the prior 6 months. This has resulted in the necessary personnel required to compile the Data often unavailable or without access to the voluminous information, causing understandable delay in the process. In addition, despite the recent reopening of Defendant’s casino and hotel, due to the unanticipated and unprecedented closure orders, Defendant and its counsel has had to prioritize other urgent matters. Further, given the sensitive nature of such Data, the parties have been diligently working on and have stipulated to a protective order (ECF No. 53). Just this week on October 19, 2020, this Court granted such order (ECF No. 56). Defendant is in the process of diligently collecting the agreed upon Data. The parties now anticipate the Data necessary for settlement efforts will be in a producible format shortly. However, given the timeline as discussed above and as Defendant has not yet been able to produce the Data, the parties recognize that the ensuing proper expert designation is unable to be completed by the impending November 13, 2020 expert disclosure deadline (ECF No. 49, p. 4, lines 9-10). Accordingly, the parties request the extension described herein. Given this specific factual showing –particularly Defendant not having been able to produce the necessary Data despite diligent effort—, the parties believe good cause readily exists for this Honorable Court to grant this requested extension. Further, this joint request is timely made more than 21 days before the expiration of the subject deadline in compliance with LR 23-6. This request is not sought for any improper purpose or other reason of delay. No party is prejudiced by the requested extension.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Christian Gabroy (#8805) Kaine Messer (#14240) The District at Green Valley Ranch 170 South Green Valley Parkway, Suite 280 Henderson, NV 89012 Tel: (702) 259-7777 Fax: (702) 259-7704 christian@gabroy.com kmesser@gabroy.com Jon R. Mower, Esq. Admitted Pro Hac Vice THEODORA ORINGHER PC 535 Anton Boulevard, Ninth Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7109 Tel: (714) 549-6200 Fax: (714) 549-6201 jmower@tocounsel.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Shawn Jaffee and Derek Kritz
SHAWN JAFFEE and DEREK KRITZ, Case No: 2:19-cv-00644-APG-NJK individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES Plaintiffs, (First Request) vs.
WYNN LAS VEGAS, LLC, a Nevada domestic limited-liability company, EMPLOYEE(S)/AGENT(S) DOES 1-10; and ROE CORPORATIONS 11-20, inclusive; Defendant. STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES The parties, by and through their respective counsel of record and in compliance with FRCP 16 and LR 26-3, hereby stipulate and request that the deadline to complete discovery, and all corresponding deadlines in the Court’s Scheduling Order (ECF No. 49), be extended by ninety (90) days. A. DISCOVERY COMPLETED: Both parties have exchanged their initial disclosures required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A).
B. STATEMENT SPECIFYING THE DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE COMPLETED Should the parties not achieve resolution as more fully explained below, Plaintiff anticipates taking the deposition of Defendant Wynn Las Vegas, LLC (“Defendant”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). Plaintiff also anticipates taking the depositions of individuals with knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding the allegations in the Complaint. Defendant anticipates taking the deposition of Plaintiffs and other collective members. Further, both parties anticipate serving written discovery. C. THE REASONS WHY DISCOVERY WAS NOT COMPLETED WITHIN Per FRCP 16(B)(4), a discovery scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” Good cause exists “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.1992). As this very Court has correctly noted in this matter, “[c]ounsel should strive to be cooperative, practical and sensible.” ECF No. 50, p. 1. To that end, the parties have had extensive discussions concerning potential early resolution given the limited damages period in this matter. Indeed, the Court’s February 11, 2020 Order granted in part Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 37), resulting in a damages period commencing on March 23, 2018 as recognized by this Court. See ECF No. 49, p. 4, lines 16-23. Defendant later filed its Answer (ECF No. 45) on April 24, 2020, and this Court approved the proposed scheduling order on May 13, 2020 (ECF No. 49). Specifically, in the spirit of cooperation, practicality, and sensibility, the parties agreed that rather than engaging in potentially unnecessary and costly motion and trial practice, instead Defendant will produce putative related data (the “Data”) so that Plaintiffs may independently analyze such Data to compile an appropriate damages analysis. Once such analysis has been done, the parties have agreed to engage in good faith settlement efforts. Of course, the ongoing pandemic has drastically slowed this process. Specifically, Defendant’s business (along with other hotels and casinos) was shut down per order of the Governor for a majority of the prior 6 months. This has resulted in the necessary personnel required to compile the Data often unavailable or without access to the voluminous information, causing understandable delay in the process. In addition, despite the recent reopening of Defendant’s casino and hotel, due to the unanticipated and unprecedented closure orders, Defendant and its counsel has had to prioritize other urgent matters. Further, given the sensitive nature of such Data, the parties have been diligently working on and have stipulated to a protective order (ECF No. 53). Just this week on October 19, 2020, this Court granted such order (ECF No. 56). Defendant is in the process of diligently collecting the agreed upon Data. The parties now anticipate the Data necessary for settlement efforts will be in a producible format shortly. However, given the timeline as discussed above and as Defendant has not yet been able to produce the Data, the parties recognize that the ensuing proper expert designation is unable to be completed by the impending November 13, 2020 expert disclosure deadline (ECF No. 49, p. 4, lines 9-10). Accordingly, the parties request the extension described herein. Given this specific factual showing –particularly Defendant not having been able to produce the necessary Data despite diligent effort—, the parties believe good cause readily exists for this Honorable Court to grant this requested extension. Further, this joint request is timely made more than 21 days before the expiration of the subject deadline in compliance with LR 23-6. This request is not sought for any improper purpose or other reason of delay. No party is prejudiced by the requested extension.
DISCOVERY: 1. Discovery Cut-Off The discovery cut-off shall be extended from February 11, 2021 to Wednesday, May 12, 2021. 2. Adding Parties The deadline to add parties shall be extended from November 13, 2020 to Thursday, February 11, 2021. 3. Expert Disclosure The deadline to name initial experts shall be extended from November 13, 2020 to Thursday, February 11, 2021. 4. Dispositive Motions The last day for filing dispositive motions including, but not limited to motions for summary judgment, shall be extended from March 12, 2021 to Thursday, June 10, 2021. 5. Pre-Trial Order In accordance with Local Rule 26-1(b)(5), the last day to file a Joint Pre-Trial Order, including any disclosures pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(3), shall be extended from April 9, 2021 to Thursday, July 8, 2021. In the event dispositive motions are filed, the date for filing the Joint Pre-Trial Order shall be suspended until thirty (30) days after the 1 decision on the dispositive motions or upon further order by the Court extending the 2 time period in which to file the Joint Pre-Trial Order. 3 6. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) Disclosures 4 If no dispositive motions are filed, and unless otherwise ordered by this Court, 5 the parties shall file the disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) and any 6 objections thereto with the Pretrial Order pursuant to LR 26-1(e)(6) in the Joint Pretrial 7 Order, not more than thirty (30) days after the date set for filing dispositive motions and, 8 therefore, not later than Thursday, July 8, 2021 (extended from April 9, 2021). 9 7. Interim Status Report 10 The parties previously submitted their interim status report (ECF No. 14) on May 11 13, 2019. No such request to file a second status report is requested. _ 12 8. Trial and Calendar Call 13 No trial has been set in this matter. = 14 Dated this 23rd Day of October 2020 Dated this 23rd Day of October 2020 22% 18 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER GABROY LAW OFFICES 4 SCHRECK, LLP By: _/s/ Christian Gabroy vi 17 By:_/s/ Travis Chance Christian Gabroy (#8805) cS Martine Wells (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Kaine Messer (#14240) 18 Travis Chance (#13800) Jon Mower (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 19 Attorneys for Defendant Attorneys for Plaintiff 20 a1 ORDER 22 IT |S SO ORDERED: 23 24 Li R es UNITED SKATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 Dated: _ October 26, 2020 27 2 8 Page 5of 5 21775289.1